Since
by definition issues are matters of argument, let us start by asking how
arguments persuade, and how some arguments prove (or fail to prove) their conclusions.
In so doing, we will see the vital role faith plays in all human thinking
and reasoning. This will set the stage for the more specific issues.

First,
we can easily see that arguments make three main persuasive appeals: (1) to “facts”
and logic, (2) to authorities, and (3) to emotions.[1]
Of the three, only the first actually has the potential to prove its conclusions.
For, emotional appeals (although often quite effective) cannot ground any conclusions
whatsoever. Likewise, no authority is better than the facts and reasoning
behind his or her opinions.

This
is why we should examine claimed facts and inferences from them carefully, to
see if “facts” are true and representative of the truth, and that conclusions
follow logically from these premises.[2] Second, since appeals to authority
are a practical necessity for real world arguments[3] we must discipline ourselves to authenticate
the “authorities” we appeal to; and we should also be alert to bias, mistakes,
debatable assumptions and other limitations. Most of all, while an emotional
response may well rest on an accurate perception of a situation, we must
always be wary of being blinded by our feelings, fears, ideals, prejudices, assumptions,
impulses, lusts, greed and/or envy, or even by unmet needs.

As
Luke records in Acts 17:11, the First Century Berean Jews were a good example
of such an open-minded but critically aware approach:

The
Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received
the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see
if what Paul said was true.

This
example of critically aware, reasonable faith leads to the second main issue.
For, faith and reason are often cast in opposition to one another, as if faith
always lacks adequate reason, and as if one can reason without faith. Indeed,
the two are often said to be contradictory.

This
view is false. For, as Jesus points out in Luke 6:39 – 40, blind faith is
liable to lead us about as far as the nearest ditch. Further, once we try
to prove a claim A, we need further claims and/or evidence
B to establish it. But B needs C, and so on. (Philosophers call this
an infinite regress.) So, what we always do, sooner or later, is to accept some
things, F say, as "true" without further proof, whether consciously
or unconsciously — “axioms,” “presuppositions,” "obvious facts," “intuitive
knowledge,” “self-evident truths,” “properly
basic beliefs” or whatever else we may call them:

F,
then, is our “faith-point,” from which we begin our thinking and reasoning. For
instance, most people take for granted: (1) that there is a real world, (2) that
other people have minds, (3) that we can therefore significantly communicate
with one another, and (4) that error exists (which directly implies that truth
exists and that there is a real world to be in error about[4]).
Other things are then accepted or rejected based on such “plausible
basic beliefs.”

That
is, if we try to prove everything, we can prove nothing: even proofs must start
from faith. Thus, faith and reasoning are necessary and interconnected components
in our thinking, rather than mutually hostile competitors in the battle for our
hearts and minds. For, all of us must live by faith -- whether Christian,
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or New Ager; Marxist, Secularist, Relativist or Scientist.

The
idea that Science in particular is
shot through with faith is jarring at first sight. But it is quite true:
for, we first infer scientific theories as educated guesses that work to “explain”
observed patterns in the world. Then, we test such models for their ability
to predict new observations. If such a theory/model/ explanation accurately
predicts the observations made in a wide variety of tests, it is held to be verified.

In
effect, we argue: "IF Theory, THEN Observations; Observations,
SO Theory." The underlying logic is thus the same as that of: "IF
Tom is a pig, THEN Tom is an animal; Tom is an animal,[5]
SO Tom is a pig" — an obvious fallacy, the affirming of the consequent.
[That is, we tend to confuse the logic of implication (A is sufficient
for B to be true: A => B), with that of equivalence (A is both necessary
and sufficient for B; that is, B =>A as well as A =>B,[6]
written: A <=>B).]

Clearly,
the capability of a scientific theory to predict observations cannot be a test
of its ultimate truth. For, Science can only argue to the
best current explanation.[7] So, while scientific
methods may help us to discover and test truths, the theories/models/explanations
and empirical findings of Science are always provisional — open to clarification
and correction. (The classic case is Newton's Laws of Motion: they withstood
every test for nearly two hundred years, then had their limitations sharply exposed
between 1880 and 1930.[8])

The
key to understanding these limits of scientific thinking lies in the two-way,
asymmetric link between explanations/models/theories and the bodies of observations
they explain/predict. First, models logically entail observations;
but observations can only provide provisional empirical support for the
models. Second, such explanations/models/theories [E/M/T] must face two
critical further tests: (1) self-consistency; (2) supportive/challenging relationships
to exiting bodies of accepted theory [BOAT]:

BOAT <--->
Explanation/Model/Theory <-----> empirical observations

For,
if a scientific model is not consistent with itself each half refutes the other;
so it must be false. If it is consistent and easily integrates into the existing
body of accepted theories, there is mutual reinforcement. However, occasionally
a new model or theory may provide a superior [perhaps, the only] explanation of
existing observations and accurately predicts fresh ones, but is inconsistent
with accepted theories. In that case, the new theory becomes a challenger
to the accepted body of theory, and a Scientific Crisis and/or Revolution may
follow. (This is how Quantum Theory and Relativity became the accepted fundamental
physical explanations for the motion of bodies between 1900 and 1930.[9] And, today, Intelligent
Design is challenging Darwinism as the best explanation for the apparently irreducible
complexity of life-forms, e.g. the
bacterial flagellum — a molecular scale, electrically powered outboard motor.)

So, scientific
explanations, at best, give provisional knowledge. At
worst, they may become little more than a clever attempt to explain away the
cosmos — everything from hydrogen to humans — on materialistic philosophical assumptions.
In either case, Science deeply embeds faith; it should therefore leave
room for reasonable doubt and debate about its current “best explanations/models/theories.”

Many
people, however, sharply reject such an organic link between Science and faith,
because for them "Science" is synonymous with “rationality,” or even
"knowledge" — and "faith," with "irrational or intellectually
dishonest, closed-minded belief," or even "ignorant superstition and
prejudice." Nevertheless, the point plainly still stands: scientists,
too, work by the light of faith (cf. Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm concept in his The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

We
may thus safely conclude that each of us, consciously or unconsciously, holds
to a set of plausible basic beliefs, which define our different worldviews
— different ways of understanding/interpreting ultimate reality, the world and
ourselves. Fortunately, our basic beliefs need not be arbitrary; for we
can be open to correction in light of experience and/or the discovery of inconsistencies[10] or other logical errors.
However, we must also be aware that even if certain ideas "make sense"
or “seem absurd,” such perceptions may well owe more to debatable assumptions,
or gaps in our knowledge, or mistakes in reasoning — or even to outright bias
and closed mindedness — than to what holds in the real world.

The
Early Church's experience with Jews and Greeks provides a good example of this
problem. Often, people were not willing to listen to eyewitness testimony
about Jesus' life, death and resurrection, because it did not fit in with their
preconceptions about God. Five hundred eyewitnesses notwithstanding, they
had closed their minds! (See 1 Cor. 1:18-25, 15:1-20; also Acts 17:16-33.)

Plainly,
we need to beware of the fallacy of the closed mind. On the other hand,
since it is impossible to "be neutral" on the big questions — we would
then face an infinite regress of proofs
— our intellectual commitments need to be open-minded, critically aware and honest.
Therefore, as educated Christians, we should think through our own basic commitments,
and seek to bring those we argue with to the point where they too can be aware
of their own core beliefs and values; so that they in turn may recognise their
need for repentance and to cry out to God, who "rewards those who earnestly
seek him." [Heb 11:6.]

Of
course, this requires diligent study, careful reasoning, humility, patience, prayer,
and last but not least, courage. For, we must not forget that Stephen was
both the first Christian Apologist [Acts 6:8 – 10], and — precisely because of
the irresistible force of the Spirit-filled wisdom of his case — the first Martyr
[Acts 6:11; 8:1]. But equally, it was one of his chief opponents who — through
his own encounter with the risen Christ — would take up the torch of Spirit-anointed
truthful wisdom and run with it: Saul of Tarsus.

NOTICES:
This course module was originally created by Gordon Mullings, in 1985, for use
as part of a manual for Cell Group Leaders for the UCCF, in Jamaica and the wider
Caribbean. It has been subsequently revised and developed, to date. (DISCLAIMER:
While reasonable attempts have been made to provide accurate, fair and informative
materials for use in training, no claim is made for absolute truth, and corrections
based on factual errors and/or gaps or inconsistencies in reasoning are welcome.)
FAIR USE: The contents of this module are intended for use as a support
for learning about responding to the typical intellectual challenges to the Christian
Faith and gospel that are commonly
encountered in the Caribbean, especially in tertiary education and in commentary
in the regional and international media. Permission is therefore granted to link
to this page for fair use under intellectual property law, and for reasonable
citation of the linked content on this site for
church- or parachurch- group related training and/or for personal or academic
use; this specifically excludes reproduction, linking or citation for commercial,
controversial or media purposes without the Author's
written permission -- especialy where matters relating to the validity and
value of Faith/Religious/Atheological Commitments and Truth-Claims are being debated
or disputed. PDF version available,
under similar terms. COPYRIGHT:GEM 2002. All rights are reserved.

FOOTNOTES

[1]Cf. Aristotle’s The Rhetoric. “Facts”
is used to distinguish perceptions or claims from established facts.
(NB: One has a right to believe that one’s direct sense perceptions, memory
etc. are typically accurate, but are subject to the possibility of error.)

[3]Not least, because none of us has the time or wisdom to
prove for him- or her- self the accumulated learning of the ages.

[4]Therefore, we should humbly face the possibility that
we may be in error, but insist on good reason for accepting “corrections” to important
beliefs. Cf. Trueblood, General Philosophy,
pp. 47 – 52, ff.

[6] In a valid implication, P => Q, P is a sufficient
condition for Q and Q is a necessary condition for P.

[7] Charles S. Peirce called this
process of argument by proposed best explanation/model/theory “abduction.”
In deductive arguments, one reasons from “facts” to their logical implications,
which are thus “proved” from the “facts.” By contrast, in Science we argue
that if certain hypotheses were true, then certain observed (and/or predicted)
“facts” would follow as direct implications. Thus, the observed/predicted “facts”
provide “support” —
but not actual proof — for such hypotheses/explanations.

[8] The case also strongly shows that the power of a theory/model
to explain/predict observations (and even to guide us in developing technologies
to control or influence events) cannot be a proof of its ultimate truth.

[9] Newtonian Dynamics has been retained as a relatively
simple model for the motion of large, slow moving bodies.

[10] Logical inconsistencies affirm and deny (usually implicitly)
the same claim, resulting in confusion. For example, the claim “there are
no absolute truths” is itself an absolute truth-claim. It therefore refutes
itself. No good comes of such confusion, so we must purge our thinking
of contradictions.